One of the features I like best about XnView is its "visual" configurability. If everyone wanted XnView to look as much like LightRoom as possible, then I'd agree (because that would be all right with me).

But I doubt everyone does.

So I'll continue to hope that all of the existing customization (and more!!) will eventually be present in the MultiOS version, too.

Well I certainly wouldn't complain if the customization options would allow you to make the thumbnail only half looks like lightRoom ones

I Certainly have nothing against ui customization if :
1. the customization form is properly structured.
(right now many inter-dependent controls are not properly identified, sometimes hard to find and result are often unpredictable)
2. customization would extend an already solid design (in other words:You wouldn't need to use them to try to fix default ui design flaws.)

JohnFredC wrote:Maybe I don't have the latest version? The labels are more customizable, but that's about it so far.

There are fewer color customizations (none for the browser background colro), the border around the thumbnail is inaccurate and doesn't respect the thumbnail size, etc.

I know. A work in progress, but certainly not "more settings than xnview win" yet!

You can configure color for labels by extension, by label entry, ...
Yes, there is some problems with some settings for thumbnails.
And color for widget such browser will use the general QT theme script

a small image is worth a thousand...
so here is a very simple example of how the thumbnail could be styled.
allowing quite a few variation (from lightroom to acdsee) with not too many controls.

at the moment thumbnail styling in xnview is .. well, screwed if you want my humble opinion
(picture borders are overlapping the cell, inside margin has no effect, label background are not filling the cell properly,etc..)

2Pierre It doesn't matter that XnView looks exactly like LightRoom (or any other software). Indeed, it probably shouldn't, so that the user doesn't confuse the two softwares when both are open on the diesktop. On the other hand, the aesthetic appearance of XnView IS important, as is the functionality.

The problem is that aesthetics and functionality differ per user.

This is where that modularity thing I keep bringing up applies. If you are going to the trouble to entirely rebuild XnView "from scratch", then you have enormous opportunity to be both innovative and complete in the implementation. Here is the one (and only!) opportunity to be innovative internally.

Suppose a thumbnail is considered as a user-defined collection of panels and controls:

Obviously one needs an internal data structure for this, the thumbnail control's metadata. A proper data structure is the hardest part. (I can help with the data structure design, it's my profession.)

But...

If the thumb is implemented internally in this "modular" way, then the user (this means the developer himself, too!!!) could select which panels to display, their attributes, what controls to populate them with, and where to put everything, then save it as a layout (that is: instance of the data structure)!

Given a reasonable "initial" default layout, most users would not make the effort to customize much.

However...

Consider that as the developer, Pierre, you yourself could use the modularity to define the thumbnail interface as you see fit. The development effort becomes simply one of editing the metadata associated with the thumbnail control. You could change any aspect of the thumb (panels, controls, etc) without programming! Instead you would add records to tables in the thumbnail data structure, and the thumbnail "object" would know how to render them.

I know this works because it is how I do it.

Not only that, but this approach is very good for cross platform development because it isolates the implementation of the instance of the thumbnail from the general model of the thumbnail object.

So, with all respect, I again encourage you to step back from the details and try to embrace an even bigger picture for the thumbnail objects than you may have now... and indeed for every aspect of XnView.

Fortunately for everyone: I'm on holiday (again) for a week or so... my dear wife has arranged something else to pull me away from the computer. So no more posts from me for a while!

One important thing for me (about the most important features) is also to :
1) have the ability to change the font style (type, size,color, ...) into the browser mode.
2) And of course the .ini file as option, for advanced customization (and also for easy user settings backup) .
3) Have the fit to window hotkey "/" available and others zoom functions available into all modes (Browser, View, Full screen), (+ - * are already implemented), what is the difference between hotkey: real size "ctrl+/" and the "*"?
4) Is it possible to have the tabs : Folders, Favorites, categories horizontally at the top left like before, same thing for tabs :Preview, Properties, Histogram, Exif, IPTC, XMP, ... Because this is Consuming less space.
5) Have into the tool bar the Lossless transformations icon available, for rotate ... like the win version.
6) Have available all meta data functions, clear EXIF, IPTC,..., the tool search into EXIF, IPTC, ...
7)Use ((...)) to hide a empty field, to implement as before the {File Index} fieldhttp://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.p ... light=hide